Kantian Duty Based (Deontological) Ethics

Introduction

The term deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. The theory of deontology states
we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of
outcome. In religious deontology, the principles derive from divine commandment so that under
religious laws, we are morally obligated not to steal, lie, or cheat. Thus, deontological theories and
duties have existed for many centuries. Immanuel Kant, the theorys celebrated proponent, formulated
the most influential form of a secular deontological moral theory in 1788. Unlike religious deontological
theories, the rules (or maxims) in Kants deontological theory derive from human reason.

To better understand deontology, compare it to some opposing theories, such as utilitarianism, which
says we have an obligation to take the course of action that achieves the most positive outcome or
consequence. According the theory of utility, the best consequence is happiness/pleasure, because it is
considered the absolute good. Consequentialism tells us we need to take into account the final
consequence of our action, even if the act itself is not morally good.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in the Prussian city of Knigsberg. He essentially spent his whole adult
life at the university and never truly travelled outside of the city. He only stopped working at the
university three years before his death. He was a philosopher and scientist specializing in many areas,
including mathematics, astrophysics, geography and anthropology. He wrote several dense, difficult-to-
read but highly influential texts regarding metaphysics, metaethics and practical morality, science,
history and politics. He was the first recorded scholar to suggest that some of the faint nebulae visible
with a telescope are actually separate universes in the sky.

As with many scholars of his time, Kants new ideas and published works about the nature of reality and
free will were widely condemned, but they have remained prominently influential to this day. In terms
of ethics, the most significant of his works are Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique
of Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1798). These texts constitute the foundation of
Kants own moral philosophy.

A Theory of Duty

Some terminology to consider:

Moral agent: An agent is a person who performs an action; a moral agent is a person with the capacity
to act morally.

Maxim: rule or principle

Will: the faculty of deciding, choosing, or acting

Deontological theories differ from utilitarian theories in several key ways. The most notable difference is
utilitarianism aims at a goal of greatest happiness (or the best consequence) and justifies any act that
achieves that goal. Deontological theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to
an admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act
can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome.

Kant is responsible for the most prominent and well-known form of deontological ethics. Kants moral
theory is based on his view of the human being as having the unique capacity for rationality. No other
animal possesses such a propensity for reasoned thought and action, and it is exactly this ability that
requires human beings to act in accordance with and for the sake of moral law or duty. Kant believes
human inclinations, emotions and consequences should play no role in moral action; therefore, the
motivation behind an action must be based on obligation and well thought out before the action takes
place. Morality should, in theory, provide people with a framework of rational rules that guide and
prevent certain actions and are independent of personal intentions and desires.

According to Kant, the moral worth of an action is determined by the human will, which is the only thing
in the world that can be considered good without qualification. Good will is exercised by acting
according to moral duty/law. Moral law consists of a set of maxims, which are categorical in nature we
are bound by duty to act in accordance with categorical imperatives.

Categorical Imperatives

There are three formulations of Kants categorical imperative.

The First Formulation of the Imperative

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law without contradiction. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

Kant states that a true moral proposition must not be tied to any particular conditions, including the
identity of the person making the decision. A moral maxim must be disconnected from the particular
physical details surrounding its proposition and should be applicable to any rational being. According to
Kant, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions.

Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based on pure reason but allow for interpretation
regarding how they are performed. Because these duties depend loosely on the subjective preferences
of mankind, they are not as strong as perfect duties but are still morally binding. Unlike perfect duties,
people do not attract blame if they do not complete an imperfect duty, but they receive praise if they
complete it, for they have gone beyond basic duty and taken responsibility upon themselves. Imperfect
duties are circumstantial, meaning that one can not reasonably exist in a constant state of performing
that duty. What differentiates perfect and imperfect duties is that imperfect duties are never truly
completed.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative appears similar to the Golden Rule: Do not impose
on others what you do not wish for yourself. Kants first categorical imperative sounds like a
paraphrase of the Golden Rule. However, the Golden Rule is neither purely formal nor universally
binding. It is empirical in the sense that applying it requires context; for example, if you dont want
others to hit you, then dont hit them. Also, it is a hypothetical imperative in the sense that it can be
formulated, and its if-then relationship is open for dispute.

The Second Formulation of the Imperative

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end. Immanuel Kant,
Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

This imperative states that every rational action must be considered not only a principle, but also an
end. Most ends are subjective in nature because they need only be pursued if they are in line with a
hypothetical imperative. (A hypothetical imperative is a demand of reason that is conditional. It tells us
how to act to achieve a specific goal e.g. I must drink when I need to slake my thirst.)

For an end to be objective, it would need to be pursued categorically. The free will is the source of all
rational action. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral action, it contradicts
the first formulation of the categorical imperative to claim that a person is merely a means to some
other end instead of an end in him or herself.

Based on this, Kant derives the second formulation from the first. A person has a perfect duty not to use
themselves or others merely as a means to some other end. For example, someone who owns slaves
would be asserting a moral right to own a slave by asserting their rights over another person. However,
this reasoning violates the categorical imperative because it denies the basis for free rational action and
disregards the person as an end in themselves. In Kantian ethics, one cannot treat another person as a
means to an end. Under the second formulation of the categorical imperative, a person must maintain
her moral duty to seek an end that is equal for all people.

The Third Formulation of the Imperative

Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating
member in the universal kingdom of ends. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

A truly autonomous will is not subjugated to any interest; it is subject to those laws it makes for itself,
but the will must also regard those laws as if others are bound by the laws. If the laws are not universal,
they are not laws of conduct at all. Kant suggests that people treat themselves and others always as
ends and never merely as means. People ought to act only by maxims that harmonize with a possible
kingdom of ends. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that create incoherent or impossible
states of natural affairs when we attempt to universalize them, and we have an imperfect duty not to
act by maxims that lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs for all parties involved.

Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether it is morally
permissible under deontological ethics. Lets take, for example, the act of picking flowers from the local
park. The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires
adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the universal law
(categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions that arise from the adoption
of such a maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the
act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and order
or plant ones own flowers.

There are a few acts that are always forbidden, such as lying, which negatively affects trust between
people and the meaning of truth. This rule remains the case even when lying has advantageous or even
morally admirable consequences. Imagine a psychotic criminal wants to kill your colleague, who fired
the psychotic. If you lie about the whereabouts of your colleague, then an innocent life will be saved. It
seems moral duty forbids you from lying. However, a higher moral duty trumps the duty not to lie. That
is, the obligation not to kill or help others in killing, is a higher moral duty that we should follow.

Alternative Formulation of Categorical Imperative

Kant expressed the categorical imperative in a few different ways. The most important of these is the
formula of humanity: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.

This is a personal perspective on the same moral theory. To fail to do this would be to treat others in a
way that contradicts the moral law. For example, if I steal a book from a friend, I am treating him as a
means only (to obtain a book). If I ask to have his book, I am respecting his right to say no and am
thereby treating him as an end in himself, not as a means to an end. If I only ask for the book in order to
appear nice and hope that my friend is likely to do more things for me in the future, then I am still
treating him as a means only. It is true that everyone uses people as a means to an end. Bus/taxi-drivers
get us where we want to go; factory workers are the means to producing objects and ultimately profit
for their employer. But using people only to get what we want and consistently disrespecting their
human worth is against moral law. An example of this would be a factory owner providing unsafe
working conditions, such as Foxconn in China or factories in countries that impose inhumane working
conditions and pay less than minimum wage.

Criticisms

One of the biggest criticisms of Kantian ethics is that it discounts outcome as a valid factor in evaluating
the morality of an action. While it is not necessarily wise to rely solely on outcome (as in
utilitarianism/consequentialism), it is not a good idea to completely ignore the outcome altogether.
Based on Kants formula of humanity, human life is sacred and inviolable, meaning one cannot enslave a
few people even if it would enable more people to lead better lives. Killing one person to save the lives
of millions is impermissible in Kantian ethics.

At times Kantian moral duty seems to contradict our natural inclinations and common sense. If we obey
the moral law rather than our intuitions, we are acting morally. Deontological ethics is weaker when it
comes to informing us how to live well or developing virtues of character.
==================================================================================
Notes on Kantian Ethics
Deontological (or duty-oriented) theories of ethics (e.g., divine- command theory, Kantian formalism)
assume that the first task of ethics is to determine what we are obligated to do. By doing our duty, we
do what is valuable (not the other way around). Divine-command theory says that something is good
for no other reason than that God commands it. Kant's ethics is called formalism because it focuses on
the form or structure of a moral judgment (the fact that all moral directives have the form "you ought to
do X"). The fundamental aim of Kant's ethical theory is to determine how a command can be a moral
command with a particularly obligating character.

Kant's Ethics

According to Kant there are several problems with consequentialism
According to the consequentialist, no act (no matter how evil or cruel) is right or wrong in itself
If we are already inclined to do an act because we naturally seek to produce good consequences (e.g.,
pleasure, happiness), then we are not acting freely and therefore not morally responsibly
Because of differences in their experiences and backgrounds, people differ as to what are good
consequences; therefore, we can never achieve agreement on the end of moral behavior or on an
ulitmate criterion for making such decisions
The consequences of our actions are often out of our control, so we cannot be held responsible for
those consequences or have our actions judged based on them
Morality is not based on hypothetical imperatives (if you want X--where X is, for example, happiness--
then do Y) but rather on a categorical imperative (you must do X, regardless). If morality were
hypothetical and people differed in their social and personal goals (as they do), then their means for
attaining those goals (e.g., morality) would differ as well. But morality should be the kind of thing which
does not vary from individual to individual, because otherwise there would be no point in providing a
reason for behavior other than that it is simply what one wants to do. In other words, it would be to
acknowledge that there is no reason for acting one way rather than another. But because we are
rational beings, we can give reasons for what we do, and we can act based on those reasons rather than
acting simply because we want to.
According to Kant, the fundamental rational principle of moral argument or reasoning is the categorical
imperative: you should act, regardless of your own aims or purposes, only on maxims (general ways of
acting) that you could will that everyone else also adopts. To test the maxim for universalizability, you
have to ask whether the universal adoption of such a way of acting would be (1) consistent (i.e.,
possible) or (2) acceptable to rational beings.
A maxim such as "lie when you can get away with it" cannot be universalized consistently (i.e., without
contradiction) because, if people lied when they thought they could get away with it, you would never
know when anyone was telling you the truth; in such a world, there would be no way to tell the truth
from a lie, so its universalization would generate a contradiction. Another example of this same point:
the universalization of "steal when you can" would create a world in which no one's property would any
longer truly be rightfully his or hers; but if there is no private property any more, there can be no
stealing either, since stealing means taking someone's private property.

Kant recognizes that it is necessary to add the second test of universalizability (acceptability) because
there are maxims that can be universalized without contradiction (e.g., "Help out people only when you
benefit from it") which are not universally acceptable. That is, it is possible to imagine a selfish world
where no one helps out others except for personal gain; however, such a world would not be acceptable
to everyone, and the fact that it does not have universal acceptability makes it a maxim on which no
moral action can be based.

[Note how Kant's Categorical Imperative is different from the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you
would have them to unto you"): it is not based on what you want but on what is necessary for any being
to act rationally (that is, universally, without consideration of his/her own self-interest).]
Being rational means being able to act based on motives that are universally defensible. Thus to act as a
human being is not to act as a slave to one's instincts or passions or as a result of social causes but as
ends-in- themselves. Human beings can act out of respect for doing something because it is the rational
thing to do, and when they do this they are acting for the sake of doing their duty; and this is what being
moral means, acting on the basis of a "good will." In this way, they are authors of their actions
(autonomous) and are morally responsible for their intentions, not the consequences of actions.
Morality presumes the existence of rational persons. A society of autonomous, rational persons is a
kingdom of ends, a society in which each individual has dignity, intrinsic worth, and is considered fully
responsible for his or her choices in the making of universal law. [But if everything is valuable only in
terms of moral beings, then what about nature?--Answer: value is meaningful only in terms of freely
chosen ends.] The possibility for rationality makes humans morally significant, but that does not
indicate specific morally justifiable ways to act.